Who's ready to enjoy two weeks of stress free weekends? I sure am, great job by the Falcons for getting the job done against the Lions. My only wish in this game is to get William Moore some playing time just to shake off some rust. If he can play a half that would be cool. Other than that, whatever happens enjoy. The main starters should only be in for a half tops, otherwise they are really playing with fire.

What I want to see is the starters come out and put together a very strong first half of the game. If that is the case, then I think you can comfortably pull them in the 2nd half.

But if it's a 7-3 game at halftime, then I don't know...

The last thing you want is a key player to get injured in the season finale, but the 2nd to last thing you want is them to go into a bye week on a whimper, particularly offensively. We saw what happened with that vs. Carolina. Sure, you can certainly argue that they got "bored" and didn't approach the Panther game mentally as they should have after a 10-day layoff, and thus a repeat of the mental letdown isn't likely with the playoffs. But it's much easier to come out of a bye playing your best football if you went into it doing so, than trying to manufacture a spark while working out in pads.

BTW, fun gus, I too would prefer to see Davis play this week than McCown, but I also know there's a snowball's chance in hell that happens.

I think you are being too picky Pudge. The offense is fine regardless if they don't come out hot, even though who hasn't thrown all over Tampa Bay? I don't want Ryan in during the second half, which shouldn't be a problem.

I wouldn't call the offense "just fine." We've seen in recent years that one-dimensional offenses can go far in the playoffs with the Packers and Giants. But the difference between those offenses and our current one is those offenses were much more explosive than we are.

The 2012 Falcons generate explosive (20+ yard) pass plays on about 7.9% of their pass attempts this year. The 2011 Giants did so on 11.4%, and the 2010 Packers on 10.5%. If the Falcons were on the level of the Packers they would have 15 more 20+ yard pass plays, and 20 at the Giants level. That 1 or so more big play per game doesn't seem like a lot, but that can ultimately lead to 1 more scoring drive per game, and that is potentially the difference between the elite offense and the pretty good one.

What people may find interesting is that our 2010 offense that was dead last in the league in terms of explosive plays had a percentage of 5.5%. Essentially making this 2012 offense somewhere in the middle between very good (a la the Giants) and very bad (a la the 2010 Falcons), which we know is nothing more than average.

Teams have to fear you, and there is nothing fearsome about being average. If the Falcons are pretty ho-hum next week, does that mean I'm going to open up a vein? No. But I do think the margin for error for this team going forward is much, much smaller than a lot of Falcon fans think. It's razor thin, and there's nothing "just fine" about that.

And the last thing I want to see is this team approach the playoffs with that sort of mentality. We've seen that story play out before. It happened in 2010. All I know is if the team has the same sense of urgency that has been largely reflected in the fan base this year, then they are gonna be screwed come playoff time.

I'm sorry Pudge but you are totally nitpicking everything which is a common theme but some of it is wise. There is nothing that can justify playing the starters more than a half. End of story. What is there to prove on a terrible defense like Tampa Bay?

nit picking is the theme lately, so following this boards logic, since San Fran got destroyed tonight they have no shot in the playoffs right? poor them or does this only apply to Atlanta? I get confused when nuances mean more than wins as to what is impressive.

_________________When life gives you lemons, find some salt and tequila then invite me!

I'm sorry, have you not been following the Falcons the past 5 years? I think my neurosis is well justified over this team.

I said if the Falcons come out sluggish in the first half of the game, I think you have think about continuing to play them in the 2nd half.

You say there is no justification for playing them in the 2nd half. But that statement is based off the (false) assumption/belief that the offense is "just fine." Sure, by league standards it is. But by playoff standards, it is not. This is not a great offense. When we compare the 2012 Falcons offense to other offenses in recent years that have had postseason success, it is much closer to average than good/great.

The idea that the Falcons can essentially take 2 weeks off and then just be able to turn the switch on at will when need be is naive, because there is very little precedent for it in the NFL at large, and certainly very little precedent for it in the Falcons 2012 season.

I'm not saying that the Falcons need to be up 28-0 at halftime next week to merit them being pulled off the field. But if the Falcons just approach this game as if it were a throwaway/preseason game, then that is the same complacent behavior that has screwed over this team the past 4 seasons.

Now for the record, I don't expect the Falcons offense to struggle next week, and thus this issue will be moot.

The idea that the Falcons can essentially take 2 weeks off and then just be able to turn the switch on at will when need be is naive, because there is very little precedent for it in the NFL at large, and certainly very little precedent for it in the Falcons 2012 season..

can you cite your 'precedent'? Im a little confused.

We have had the 'wild card' in the NFL since the 70's...Since then, only 10 WC teams have won the Superbowl ( Only four of those wild card teams -- New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, and Green Bay Packers -- won three games on the road to make it to the Super Bowl! ) so it appears the majority of SB winning teams already had one week off, and I would wager a majority of those teams sat starters if they had locked up the division already. I dont have any cute stats to back this up, though. Just doesn't seem like a precedent to me.

I might feel differently if we were not playing at home, I think the Green Bay Beatdown(tm) was more an anomaly and a result of bad coaching, uninspired play, etc..I just dont see that in this years team. Plus, Matt and alot of the team has experience playing a 1st round bye( even if that was a bad experience). And in the last two games, Smitty did not 'let up'. The team played a little sluggish in the 3rd qtr, but they put away the Lions in stride. They crushed the Giants and never took the foot off thier necks. This is NOT the same team from 2010. We have better coordinators. Matt has mtured into an elite QB. Smith is taking the chains off him.

If we sit the players, and they come out and lay another egg: I dont blame the '2 weeks off'. NO freekin way. That's a red herring. I blame the coach and the QB. They are supposed to 'lead'. They are supposed to be working thier a$$ off in those two weeks. In the past, Smitty would say 'good job guys, take 4 days off and I'll see you thursday or friday..'. That has to change. I want Matty to say 'okay I want everybody back here Jan 2nd. We dont 'take a break'. Were watching film of the things we did wrong from the Tampa game. Were not being complacent. Not this time'.

But here's a thought. Sit key players until the 4th qtr, then let them dig out of the hole! If we dont want them to be rusty, then have them play closest to the end whistle

That's a red herring. I blame the coach and the QB. They are supposed to 'lead'. They are supposed to be working thier a$$ off in those two weeks.

See that's dubious. The team with the first round bye is 11-9 in the past 5 years in the second round of the playoffs.

Are you suggesting that when the Jets beat the Chargers in '09, it was because Rex Ryan/Mark Sanchez "led" better than Norv Turner/Philip Rivers?

Two years earlier, was Norv/Rivers better at "leading" than Dungy/Manning when they went into Indy and beat the Colts? Did Rex/Sanchez "lead" better than Belichick/Brady in 2010?

Winning football games isn't about "leadership." Although leadership certainly factors into it. It's about players, it's about matchups, it's about coaching. If the Falcons play the Seahawks in Round 2, Matt Ryan can't "lead" or "inspire" Tyson Clabo to have a good game against Chris Clemons. If Clabo plays well against Clemons, then he does so on his own skills and abilities, not because in the 2 weeks off, Matt Ryan gave inspiring speeches or watched a bunch of tape. And if Clabo plays poorly against Clemons, who along with Bruce Irvin combines for 6 sacks of Matt Ryan, it wasn't because the Falcons lacked leadership from Ryan and/or Smith, it's because their tackles aren't as good as the Seahawks defensive ends.

Football is like any sport where timing, continuity, consistency, rhythm, repetition all are beneficial. And that is especially true for offense, especially on teams where they tend to pass the ball a lot because so much of passing is about timing and rhythm. You said it yourself, it's risk/reward. You rest them Week 17, the reward is you have a healthier team come playoff team, but the risk is that you increase the chances they come out rusty in the playoffs. If you treat Week 17 like any regular game, the risk is much higher that you lose a key player that definitely inhibits your chances in the playoffs, but the reward is that you're team is potentially less rusty going into the playoffs and more likely to hit the ground running coming out of the bye.

Look, there is no definitive answer. But I can't help but notice the number of top offenses that come out flat when they play in the 2nd round of the playoffs against teams that have often been going full bore for multiple weeks, and I think there is a correlation there. Maybe it's small.

I think the best solution is incentivizing things. I think Mike Smith tells the guys that in order to get your rest, he needs to see 2 or 3 quarters of excellent football this week. If he sees that, then guys will get their welcome rest. Maybe a couple of guys you deactivate that would have been playing this week at 85-90%. Hopefully that incentive works, the Falcons come out and play excellent football in the 1st half, build a big lead, and you pull them in the 2nd half, and you get both. But if not, I think you have to be a bit flexible. I don't think you head into this final game thinking, "I'm going to pull them in the 2nd half no matter what."

What to do when home field is clinched; Executive of the Year race; notes on Wayne, Gates and more.December 23, 2012, 06:00 AM EST

So your team has clinched its playoff position but still must play a meaningless regular season game. How should the head coach approach it?

It’s a question for which there is no definitive answer. Different teams have had different results with different approaches. Sometimes, approaches might even change from year to year.

Mike Smith of the Falcons will be wrestling with this issue next week, as his team clinched home field throughout the playoff Saturday night. Indications are he plans on resting his key players in the team's regular season finale against the Bucs. Gary Kubiak of the Texans also could be in the same position based on what happens Sunday.

Old school NFL wisdom says rest your starters when possible. Hall of fame coach Marv Levy was a front man for this philosophy when the Bills were on their great run in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. And it worked well for him.

LevyMarv Levy didn't make it to the Hall of Fame by making dumb decisions.

His philosophy was to treat that meaningless regular season game almost like a bye week. “It helps them revitalize, and there is a thought of protecting them from injuries,” Levy said. “I like to give them some work, but it varies for each player. It also gives you a chance to look at other players and get them some chances.”

Dick Vermeil, who could join Levy in the hall of fame one day, played it similarly during his career with the Eagles, Rams and Chiefs. When his teams had home field clinched, he viewed the last game of the regular season—and the practice week that preceded it--as a time to start preparing for the playoffs.

He thought that gave his teams an edge, but his primary motivator was avoiding a potentially catastrophic injury. “I feel the healthy players you have are the reason you have the opportunity to proceed,” he said. “If you get one of them hurt in a game that is not important to win in regard to status in the playoffs, you are hurting the team.”

Packers coach Mike McCarthy was of similar mind. At least until last year, that is.

His Packers had wrapped up home field advantage early in 2011, and in the meaningless regular season finale against the Lions he decided to rest Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, Charles Woodson, Greg Jennings, Randall Cobb and others. The Packers surrendered 502 passing yards but won a wild game, 45-41. Then two weeks later they were upset by the Giants 37-20 in their first playoff game.

“I don’t think the last game particularly helped the confidence of the defense,” McCarthy told me. “That was something we probably didn’t want to admit to. We sat some guys and it was a damn seven on seven drill. I’ve never seen so much offense in my life, both sides of the ball.”

McCarthy won’t say resting his stars was a mistake. But he also won’t say he would do it the same way again. It would depend on the situation.

“To me the best team is a healthy team for the playoffs,” he said. “The decision would be based on what you do the last two weeks. That’s one of the times I talk with [general manager] Ted [Thompson]. It’s good to hear his perspective. He’s more cautious by nature than I am. We were a little on the fence—do you play them or not? At the time, I felt us being fresh would have been more important.”

Football teams get better by playing games. So the risk of stagnating, or losing momentum, is what drives coaches like Bill Belichick to keep fighting even through meaningless games. Levy said he never felt any of his Bills teams lost momentum by taking their foot off the gas late in the year.

“We happened to have a great group of people and leaders who understood what we were doing and why, and we explained it very well to them,” he said.

Resting starters in these situations is always the right decision—until your team gets knocked off in the playoffs.

Jay Adams of Atlanta Falcons.com wrote on Sunday about Falcons head coach Mike Smith’s comments following Saturday night’s win against the Detroit Lions. In those comments, Smith talked about the Falcons intention to “play to win” in their Week 17 matchup against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Smith said:

“We’re going to play the game to win. That’s how we’re going to approach it. It’s an important game because it’s a division game. All games, I think, are important. In terms of the importance of it, does it have no bearing? It really does, because we want to win every time we go out and play.”

The Falcons have already locked up the NFC’s top seed and home-field advantage throughout the playoffs, and thus the result of next Sunday’s season finale is relatively meaningless. Leading many to think the Falcons should rest their starters in order to keep them healthy for their upcoming playoff game in two weeks. The Falcons receive a first-round bye, giving them an extra week of rest. That two-week lay-off certainly will be beneficial to get some players healthy, such as safety William Moore who has missed the past three games with a hamstring injury. It also should give players like wideout Roddy White, who has had a lingering knee injury in recent weeks, a greater chance to get closer to 100% health before the playoffs.

While Smith’s comments don’t mean that some key players could still wind up sitting out or playing limited reps, it does mean that the Falcons won’t be treating this as nothing more than a preseason game. The Falcons will be smart to reduce the reps of some key players, and give some of the younger guys more opportunities to show their skills. For example, White has played over 90% of the team’s offensive snaps most weeks. Even with a bum knee, he played in 50 of the team’s 57 snaps against the Lions (88%) per Pro Football Focus. That won’t be necessary this week. The Falcons should be a bit more willing to rotate Drew Davis into the lineup and maybe White only needs to play 35 or so snaps. That certainly would give the Falcons an opportunity to win the game, but also lower the risk that White aggravates that knee injury.

In 2010, when the Falcons similarly had a first round bye and the No. 1 seed in the playoffs, they squared off against the Carolina Panthers in the season finale. The Falcons built a 31-3 lead before pulling many of the starters at the outset of the fourth quarter. It seems likely that will be the goal for the Falcons this week. Unfortunately, the Falcons won’t be facing 2-13 Panthers team led by Jimmy Clausen this year. Instead they will be facing a 6-9 Buccaneers team that is coached by Greg Schiano. A year ago the Falcons faced a 4-11 Buccaneers team that had quit on then-coach Raheem Morris, resulting in 45-24 beatdown. That likely won’t be the case with Schiano, who wants his players to blitz on kneel-downs because he believes going all-out for four quarters.

This likely impacts Smith’s decision. Since it’s highly likely the Bucs will be playing to win, it’s important that the Falcons do so. Both of the Falcons losses have come to division opponents. The Falcons don’t want that to continue this week. While it will have little effect on this season, it could have sweeping effects for the future of this team. Greg Hardy of the Carolina Panthers indicated that the players in the Panthers locker room believed they were the better team than the Falcons prior to their Week 14 matchup. And the Falcons proceeded to have their worst performance of the season, lending credence to Hardy’s comments. Next year, the Panthers will be no less confident when it comes to facing the Falcons. The Bucs and Falcons played a tight game in Week 12, and the Falcons don’t want to give the Bucs any incentive come 2013 that they might be a better team with a season-ending win.

Smith’s statement indicate that he is not only focused on this season, but also future seasons. Smith talks a lot about “the process” and this decision to play to win is an aspect of that. What he is essentially telling his players is that they must be mentally tough each and every week. Something they were not a few weeks ago against Carolina after a 10-day layoff. Julio Jones basically admitted this:

“It’s really not about them. It’s about us. It’s the little things. We can get bored. We lost against Carolina. We were kinda bored with it — looking at their record — I just think we got bored. There are no excuses because they whooped us, but we can’t let that happen again. We can’t get bored. We have to prepare like we’re playing the best team in the NFL. We gotta go out there and play Falcon football. We gotta execute, and our guys have to be on the same page and play 100 percent.”

This mentality will also serve the team in its immediate future. It’s no secret that the Falcons have struggled in the playoffs. And part of that may be due to a lack of preparation. If/when the Falcons do succeed in January, it will require great mental focus. It’s hard to instill that in a team, when you purposefully take games off.

The Falcons will play to win and hope they can build a big lead and thus be able to pull their starters as they have done in past season finales. It won’t be an easy task against the Schiano-led Buccaneers, but it starts with Smith telling his players to give 100% effort this week.

I didn't see if this was discussed earlier (I didn't have time to read the longer posts)... But Pudge mentioned how the one-dimensional offenses can go deep in the playoffs and noted Green Bay and New York during their title runs.

I would also note that both those teams had very good defenses as well. This enabled those teams to make it deep despite a not-so-dynamic offense.

The biggest difference between this Falcons team and the ones that got bounced in the first round is the defense. The personnel is largely the same (though I could argue that adding Samuel and dumping Ray Edwards + a developing Bierman makes it better overall personnel wise) the coaching change at DC has made this a dramatically better defense. We aren't setting the world of fire nor are we setting records. But this defense has stepped up to win games numerous times and they have the ability and propensity to score points when the offense can't.

I was very much in the negative 1 & done camp. But, with the resurgence of the passing game and the defense continuing to do what they need to do I think the Falcons can finally make a decent run if not make it to the Super Bowl.

Contrary to the tenor of this thread, I also think the Falcons can win in January because of the comments you made dirtybirdnw. But I also believe the Falcons margin for error is thin. The defense has stepped up against quality passers and generally played well and made plays at home. So I'm not worried about them. But the offense has been hit and miss, and compared to the Giants and Packers which was a Victor Cruz TD or Aaron Rodgers bomb away from scoring every other play.

The Falcons at times are that team with big plays to Roddy or Julio, but those plays have been much more sporadic than people probably think. IMO partly due to the shortcomings of the OL. They played very well vs the Giants, but other than that they've struggled a lot indoors. If the OL doesn't play well, then the Falcons offense is very very average, and unless the D can create a ton of TOs, then its going to be much harder to win those 21-17 games in January.

That's why I think the Falcons offense laying an egg this week is a bigger deal. If they can't perform (even for just a half) against TB who have a weak secondary and pass rush, how do you expect to do it vs. Seattle, San Fran, GB, etc.?

You're right, there are no perfect teams. Everyone has their flaws. But it's a question of how easy it is to exploit those flaws.

The Falcons flaw on offense is their poor OL play and no running game. If you can get pressure on Ryan, then the offense becomes decidedly average. Their flaw on defense is their lack of a pass rush. If games get into a shootout, the Falcons are going to be hard-pressed to "affect" the opposing QB to get stops, again putting the onus back on the offense to outscore their opponent. You win shootouts because you can generate explosive plays, not because you have a highly efficient passing offense.

The Seahawks and 49ers are two very similar teams. Why people are getting off the 49ers bandwagon is unknown to me. Perhaps it's because Seattle waxed them last week. But what people don't realize is that game was ideally suited for the Seahawks to shine. The 49ers are still the same team that is likely going to win the division, and beat the best team in the AFC (the Patriots) the week before.

Seattle and San Fran are two teams with very good pass rushes that can control the clock by running the ball effectively. Wilson's running ability and Kaepernick's vertical passing are what give those offenses their explosive plays. They have the perfect formula for beating the Falcons, and frankly if the Falcons face either in the playoffs, they should not be favored. Both teams are beatable, but basically you have to get them out of their games very early. You have to score early against both teams to take their running game out of the equation.

That's something the Falcons have struggled to do for most of this season (excluding the past 2 weeks and the month of September), and will have to do to have a chance. Otherwise, Aldon Smith and Chris Clemons are going to eat.

The Packers are also dangerous to the Falcons. The reason because of Clay Matthews gives them effective pressure on defense. But the main obstacle for the Packers, is their offense is ideally constructed to get into a shootout. That's what they want to do. In order to get them off their gameplan, you need to run the ball effectively, and slow down that offense. Something the Falcons have struggled to do this year.

This is why these 3 teams are the most dangerous matchups for the Falcons, and it behooves the Falcons to avoid one of these matchups in Round 2, otherwise it might be another 1 & done year.

The Falcons success this year will almost certainly result from the ability of Ryan/Jones/White to score big plays and scoring a lot of points, and the defense creating turnovers. We've seen that at times this year but not to the level of consistency that we should expect from a team that is truly the best in the league as many here like to say.

Living in the Bay Area, I think I can answer why I would be worried as a 9er fan. Justin Smith is injuried, and their D has looked definitively different without him in the lineup. The Patriots run in that game of 4 TDs was a combination of Kapernic making a couple of mistakes, and Smith's exodous from the game. And the Seattle game, he didn't play.

I personally hope they let Ryan play at least the first half, but sit Roddy. If he's hurt, let him sit two weeks and not just one, as that will just help and he's one of the strengths of our team. ESP if we face Seattle, we'll need him.

I heard this stat and maybe its wrong but did the Falcons get a first down in the third Quarter last week?? I writing without any stats but it seems the Falcons third quarter istheir week point while they often come out strong in the first quarter.

I'd like to see the Falcons play a few series in the third quarter then pull them regardless.Give them some rest, then work the hell out of them on the good ole fundamentals.

When we play poor we don't block, we tackle high; and worst of all we take angles towards ball carriers that would make high school players ashamed. I mean half time can be about some adjustments for the Qb and the defense; but I think its most of all is to remind themselves the game is only half over and they need to come out in the third quarter ready to go 100%. Everyone knows this but the Falcons don't always put this it into practice for being the number 1 seed!!

Roddy wants those stats. If we win a Championship game or a Super Bowl I'm still saying he makes the Hall Of Fame. Tony G. has taught him how; he doesn't need to stay faster he just needs to out muscle those corners. Its getting closer to reality thanwhen I brought it up 3 years ago; yet I'm still a band wagoner of 1 when it comes to Roddy and the Hall. 6 straight 1,000 receiving yards YEARS is getting pretty strong if we'll win something!!

Roddy wants those stats. If we win a Championship game or a Super Bowl I'm still saying he makes the Hall Of Fame. Tony G. has taught him how; he doesn't need to stay faster he just needs to out muscle those corners. Its getting closer to reality thanwhen I brought it up 3 years ago; yet I'm still a band wagoner of 1 when it comes to Roddy and the Hall. 6 straight 1,000 receiving yards YEARS is getting pretty strong if we'll win something!!

I was the main one disagreeing with you. But I also conceded that if Roddy gets a ring, it changes the conversation. Without it, I don't think he gets in, nor do I think he gets a serious discussion. Relative to his era, can we say Roddy is better than players like Andre Reed, Cris Carter, and Tim Brown. Now many think all 3 of those guys will eventually get into the Hall, but they've all experienced a number of times as finalists, with no real push to get any in. Reed is now in his 6th or 7th year of being a finalist. He lost 4 Super Bowls, Tim Brown lost 1, and Carter played in none.

The two main criteria for Canton is putting up sick numbers or playing in and winning Super Bowls. Unlike Tony Gonzalez, who has set the record book for TEs in the NFL, ultimately Roddy's career numbers are probably not going to look much different than a lot of his peers from the past 10-15 years.

And while Roddy has an interesting stat and been very consistent with it (6 years of 80+ catches, 1000+ yards), his achievement has been matched by Brandon Marshall. And the distinction of 80 catches vs. 70 or 75 is fairly arbitrary, as you lower it by that amount and a few other receivers enter the conversation (i.e. Marques Colston). Others haven't earned that achievement due to injuries (i.e. Andre Johnson) or poor QB play (i.e. Larry Fitzgerald).

Basically, it begs the question what is different about Roddy than say Colston or Marshall? On paper, it's really nothing. So if Roddy deserves HOF enshrinement, both of those guys do as well. Which basically leads one to believe then that there are probably as many as 10 WRs actively playing that based off that criteria deserve to be HOFers. And we know that's not going to be the case.

You look at what could distinguish Roddy from most of those others is hardware. You look at the WRs that have played on teams that have won championships during this time (since '07), with the possible exception of Colston, Hines Ward, none are what most consider the top-tier of WRs that deserve HOF discussion.

This year probably represents Roddy's best chance to get that hardware. So roughly 5 weeks from now we will probably have a close to definitive answer on whether Roddy has a future in Canton.

I think Deion would have gotten in had he managed to play 7 more years in Atlanta just because he was that good. But leaving Atlanta certainly didn't hurt him as he was able to get 2 rings, things he probably would have never had a chance to get in Atlanta, except in '98 assuming the Falcons history from '94 to '97 remained the same.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum